• Paranormalia is written by Robert McLuhan, a journalist and author based in London. Please contact me at [email protected]

« Ghosts in the Media | Main | Hello Again »

January 08, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6d8553ef017ee716b3ef970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Atheists and Guns:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Interesting article. You're right that American gun-toting baffles Europeans. I got an insight into it the other day - someone who goes to the U.S. frequently said they're morbidly afraid of their ethnic minorities. Can any American confirm or deny this?

Gun control is probably the clearest example of the different worldviews between Americans and Europeans.

The right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) was written into the U.S. Constitution so that the citizenry would be able to mount an armed rebellion against a tyrannical government. Justification because of the need for self defence and hunting would not have even crossed the Founding Fathers minds - those needs were a given during the era when the Constitution was being written. Armed conflict was a way of life for those folks.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
And...
"Periodic revolution, at least once every 20 years, is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

Don't know how relevant that mentality is to this day and age, but private gun ownership is built into the Constitution. Although I don't own any guns myself, I honestly believe that a fiercely violent conflict would erupt if the government were to try to disarm the entire American population. It's just the way it is.

"his solution to schools killings is the same as theirs - to post armed guards in schools"

Also the same solution proposed and employed by Bill Clinton.

Would you place a gun in the hands of this man?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-piers-morgan-interview-cnn-rant-on-gun-control-113924767.html#Vrt9I2K

(And I don't mean Piers Morgan.) ;)

The farther to the political/religious Right one goes, at least in the U.S., the more pervasive and profound the paranoia becomes, frequently so bizarre that it would be hilarious if it weren't so scary. I find it puzzling that a rationalist can be so compartmentalized, operating clearly in some aspects of life while at the same time that rationality is obliterated by the emotional storms of power and control on the gun issue! (See not only Harris but the Alex Jones clip mentioned by Julie as example.)

"Harris's high-profile opposition to Islam potentially makes him a target, so he has an excuse for taking drastic precautions."

That makes it sound like every Muslim is a crazed nut who wants Harris dead. That's not what you meant, is it?

No not all. I meant that it makes him vulnerable to the crazies. Was thinking of what happened to the Dutch film-maker Van Gogh ...

My understanding is (and I am probably wrong here) that the 2nd amendment right was "for the purpose of forming a militia". I guess this was to avoid having a standing army? As the US seems to have a standing army now, presumably there is no need for militias? If this is true it looks like redundant legislation doesn't it?

My understanding is (and I am probably wrong here) that the 2nd amendment right was "for the purpose of forming a militia". I guess this was to avoid having a standing army? As the US seems to have a standing army now, presumably there is no need for militias? If this is true it looks like redundant legislation doesn't it? - Paul

It can be argued that over time the definition of, and need for a 'militia' has changed dramatically. That definition and need may change even more in the future, who knows?
There's the rub. It's all a matter of interpretation, and the current (conservative leaning) Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the personal use interpretation.

Contrary to popular belief, the Posse Comitatus Act (Google it) does not prohibit the standing U.S. Army from providing local law enforcement. That being said, it's hard for me to imagine our Army turning on its own citizens, and even if it did, the best publicly available assault rifles would look like pop guns to the Army's high tech artillery. What would a bunch of "well intended" vigilante groups be able to do? A violent rebellion in the U.S. would be like Syria on steroids, only it would be over in a few weeks.

I brought up the Constitutionally justified reason for personal handgun ownership to point out the specific reason why the U.S. is engaged in a different argument than say, the Europeans. It's a quaint sounding argument, but it's real. Interestingly, the justification touted most often by the N.R.A. is self-defence, probably because the Constitutional argument sounds so quaint. And in a terrorism infested world, it does have a certain edge to it.

With regard to American fear of minorities, this only holds true in some Midwest and east coast areas. Not everywhere.

Certainly in the West, where minorities comprise a very substantial part of the population and have been around since before many areas became states, it is much less true.

The gun nuts are a lot like the skeptics. No amount of science will deter them. What the science shows should be obvious to anyone: Guns used against humans are primarily for suicide and secondarily against loved ones and relatives and by accident.

The fantasy of fending off attackers with your gun is not borne out by reality. Home invasions, where the attacker deliberately breaks into an occupied home, are very rare.

When you remove Asian on Asian crime from this equations, which accounts for 99% of all home invasions, it becomes even more absurd.
(Asian immigrants tend not to trust banks and keep their wealth hidden in their home. The attackers (also Asian) will hold them at gunpoint to find out where the wealth is hidden.)

Robert, great to see you back! I fully agree with you. There are many Americans who can't understand the deep attachment to guns, especially guns whose purpose is to shoot other people. It seems very strange that we would want to fire a lump of metal at high velocity into another person's body.

As for Harris, he really lost it for me with his response to Eben Alexander. I had held him apart as the open-minded, spiritually-minded, open-to-psi, meditating atheist. I didn't take him off that pedestal; he jumped off it all by himself with his comments in regard to Alexander.

Hi Robert, Yes Harris's response to Alexander was quite excitable, although to be fair, that Newsweek article must have been quite provoking to someone of his persuasion, and he did make some good points. Like you I've had some respect for him in the past. That said, I'm becoming ever less willing to take him at his word about being open-minded.

Robert a lot of people don't want anything to do with guns simply because they're aware of those rare moments when its possible to enter into a cold or hot rage when if a gun were to hand it's perfectly possible to imagine onself ending the dispute with a bullet.

They're also aware though once the bullet's on its way one may spend the rest of one's life deeply regretting or even being haunted by what happens next.

Maybe Sam Harris knows for a fact owning a gun somehow puts one into a permanent zen-like state in which one never loses one's temper or never regrets shooting someone but if he does then he ought to pass on the secret how that's possible to all those police officers who have to undergo counselling because they can't come to terms with the fatc they've shot someone or indeed those military personnel who hang themselves for much the same reason.

One of many examples of how strident the rhetoric gets in certain quarters:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charge-any-politician-tries-infringe-second-amendment-treason/qJQ5MTDZ

Yep, that's a petition on the official White House web site. It won't go anywhere, but it illustrates how hot the debate can get. *sigh*

A little late to this thread...... I am an American and I am a gun owner. Twice in civilian life I have thawrted a serious threat to my person by using a gun. When I lived down by the US/Mexico border I carried a .357 magnum on my person most of the time.

Yes. The Consitution protects my right to own a gun for self defense and, yes, I will make some serious protest if someone attempts to curtail that right.

Some Americans live in relatively safe communities and can ignore danger from others without significant peril. Others live elsewhere and don't have that luxury. America is really a patchwork quilt of cultures. Someone living in the suburbs of an North East coastal city really has little in common, culturally, with someone living in, say, the South or South West of the country. Different worlds.

As for Europeans, well some of look at you guys as see a bunch of socialist collectivists and we note your propensity for burning your cities doewn and killing off entire generations of your young every several decades or so - though I note that after the US saved you (again) and occupied and help rebuild that which you destroyed, your mass murderous tendencies have toned down - so far - until the next dictator/emperor/marxist inspires some kind of violent social upheaval.

For Americans a gun is not just a gun. It is a symbol that the individual is empowered with the same fatal coercive power as the state. Europeans, being accustomed to subjugation by kings, emperors, etc, do not understand. Europeans are happy to surrender themselves to the collective; Americans not so much. The gun is a symbol of the ability to resist. Our founders believed in its meaning and use, if necessary.

Is it silly to think that men with guns could fight off a modern army determined to oppress them? I don't know. I'd say that from the jungles of Vietnam to the mountain of Afghanistan, history says it's possible.

"your mass murderous tendencies have toned down - so far - until the next dictator/emperor/marxist inspires some kind of violent social upheaval."

It can't happen now, thanks to the socialist collective we call the "European Community".
However, I see the yanks are still sending troops all over the world to make sure their oil keeps flowing.

"However, I see the yanks are still sending troops all over the world to make sure their oil keeps flowing."

Sure - and not a policy I agree with, but the brits are doing it too - as are the French in Mali, recently.

The comments to this entry are closed.

ORDER ONLINE!

  • SOME REVIEWER COMMENTS
  • ‘A brisk, bracing look at this continuing controversy, exhaustively researched .. a must-read for anyone with a serious interest in parapsychology and its critics.’
  • ‘‘Packed with accurate information while at the same time surprisingly engaging and fun to read.’
  • ‘‘This is one book that gives a completely objective review of skeptical debunking, and spells out in detail a clear pattern of chicanery which pervades a well-funded and organized campaign against all psi research.’

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

  • ‘These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one’s ideas so as to fit these new facts in.’ Alan Turing, computer scientist.

  • ‘I have noticed that if a small group of intelligent people, not supposed to be impressed by psychic research, get together and such matters are mentioned, and all feel that they are in safe and sane company, usually from a third to a half of them begin to relate exceptions. That is to say, each opens a little residual closet and takes out some incident which happened to them or to some member of their family, or to some friend whom they trust and which they think odd and extremely puzzling.’ Walter Prince, psychic researcher.

  • When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Arthur C. Clarke

  • ‘Science seems to me to teach in the highest and strongest manner the great truth which is embodied in the Christian conception of entire surrender to the will of God. Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.’ Thomas Henry Huxley

  • We can always immunize a theory against refutation. There are many such immunizing tactics; and if nothing better occurs to us, we can always deny the objectivity – or even the existence – of the refuting observation. Those intellectuals who are more interested in being right than in learning something interesting but unexpected are by no means rare exceptions. Karl Popper, on the defenders of materialism.

  • If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run - and often in the short one - the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative. Arthur C. Clarke.

Become a Fan